Enhancing Sanitation in Vietnam through Decentralized Wastewater ...

Consultative Meeting on Water and Wastewater Management 19-20 April 2010, Shiga, Japan

Enhancing Sanitation in Vietnam through Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Technology Transfer

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Viet Anh Vice Director, Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering (IESE), Hanoi University of Civil Engineering Add. 55 Giai Phong Rd. Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel. 04-3628 45 09, Fax 04-3869 3714, MP. 091320.9689, Email. [email protected]; www.vietdesa.net

1

Content 1. Introduction 2. National efforts, Technologies and Management models in Vietnam 3. Barriers for Technology Transfer and Dissemination of DESA 4. Discussion & Recommendation

2

1. INTRODUCTION  3/2010: ~760 cities and towns, 30% of total population  Improvement of sanitation systems for urban, peri-urban and rural areas in Vietnam is very challenging and becoming more and more crucial in this fast-developing country.  In the large cities, 50-80% of households use septic tanks, 10-20% use pit latrines.  In other cities (class 3-5), 20-50% use septic tanks, 30-50% use pit latrines or double vault latrines.  10% of urban wastewater is treated.

The only way to go: to implement low-cost DESA alternatives where local community, authorities and private sector are involved in decision making as well as in the exploitation process.

3

Conventional wastewater management

Not affordable Big investment. Leakage. Difficult reuse Limited participation ... Decentralized w/w management

More affordable Less investment and O&M costs On-site reuse Encouraging participation Low-cost technologies Step-wise approach… 4

2. Government efforts, Cases of Technology transfer Financial need for Sanitation in Vietnam Over last 20 years: USD 2 bio. have been invested for WS&S (not including household contribution). Among those: 80% is from ODA.  Urban sanitation projects are gradually covering centers of the cities and towns of different categories (special, 1st, ..., 5th).  Active donors: JICA, ADB, WB, AFD, Danida, Finnida, KfW and GTZ, Ausaid... Number of NGOs. Sanitation need for Urban + Rural Area (our calculation): 2010: 2,9 ... 10,7 bio. USD 2020: 4,3 ... 16,2 bio. USD Industries (MOIT’s calculation): 2010 and beyond:

> 7,6

bio. USD

5

Case 1. Baffled septic tank and anaerobic filter (BAST)

6

BASTAF

Hanoi – new living quarter

Bac Ninh – living quarter

HF CW

(Fish) Pond

Hanoi - village

Bac Kan – small town

Hanoi - school

7

Hanoi – office bldg.

Hanoi – new apartment Hai Phong – Island resort

8

9

Case 2 Septage (~ 200 m3/day) Combined sewer

Storm water Septic tank DVCT

CSO

(~ 3200 Sludge m3/day)

Grey water WWTPs Grey water

Septage

Black water ST effluent

Fish pond

Reuse in agriculture

Sludge (~ 300 m3/day)

10

Solid waste management: - total amount of solid waste generated: 1,500 – 1,600 tones/day. - 85% of them is collected.

11

Raw water

blackwater

Domestic wastewater

Organic waste

Supply and Disposal Center (SDC) rg y e n E

(A) Water reuse

septic tank sludge

greywater

Process water

Drinking water

Solutions for Semicentralized Supply and Disposal Systems in Urban Areas. A Case Study in Hanoi, Vietnam

Supply and Disposal Center (SDC) (B) wastewater treatment

(C) waste treatment

Treated wastewater

stabilised waste RDF 12

Solutions for Semicentralized Supply and Disposal Systems in Urban Areas. A Case Study in Hanoi, Vietnam

13

feed septic sludge digesters Organic waste suspensor municipal sludge

digester 1

digester 2

14

Failures

15

3. BARRIERS FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND DISSEMINATION OF DECENTRALIZED SANITATION 

Institutional and managerial aspects – Lack of commitments. – Vietnamese environmental standards are still not fully developed. • Still some gaps and contradicting matters • Class B or C is applied within a city? • Value of some parameters do not comply with available and affordable technologies. – QCVN 14:2008: secondary treatment can allows to achieve column B for BOD, TSS. – However, for nutrients (N, P), pathogens: some additional (tertiary) treatment, high rate of flow return (A2O), strong disinfection is required. – This leads to inefficient expenses and no-equity among different wastewater dischargers.

16

Actors – Designers: • lack of data, knowledge and experience, tightness of budget (e.g. to carry out pre-design fact-finding studies). • Design consultants do not get encouragement in low-cost options: the design fee is calculated based on the project construction cost percentage. • Design quality and its appraisal is also an issue especially in the remote areas. • Lack of third-party testing and certificating organization for the wastewater treatment technologies and equipment.

– Constructors: build according to a design approved by authorities. • Designers and constructors blame many of the operational problems to the owners.

– Owners: disrepair, lack of funds for O&M, insufficient training of operators. • Lacking of incentive measures does not encourage polluters to improve their situation.

– Studies by IESE, CENTEMA, Vietnam EPA: weak environmental pollution control capacity at different, especially local levels. 17



Technical aspects – There are still very few decentralized technical options developed and applied. – Systematic review has not been conducted: • DESA system performance, public acceptance, etc. • Balancing of investment, and O&M costs, including required space, manpower, energy and chemicals. – After AD (mostly under-ground), polishing step (large space) is required. • Alternative options: Packaged system BASTAFAT, Jokashou, etc.

18



Technical aspects (cont.) – Collection of wastewater: little national and international experience in combined drains + septic tanks. – Design guidelines are still lacking. – Most of urban sanitation projects: neglect tertiary network. – Most of rural sanitation projects: focus on on-site sanitation facilities. – Environmental sanitation and infrastructure planning of the community is lacking. – Environmental industry is still very weak. Lack of firms’ capacity for R&D, marketing strategy, etc. – Import of hi-tech products with ‘’heavy armed’’ marketing campaigns are contributing to weaken this young industry.

19

Financial aspects – Wastewater fees is still very low in urban areas, and zero in rural areas (Decree 88…) – Private sector is till not interested in this business. • No recovery for O&M and system upgrading • Lack of financial sustainability after construction works.  Social aspects – Traditional acceptance of untreated wastewater disposal by most of people. – Wastewater reuse attitudes of the public and policy makers hinder the adoption of wastewater treatment and safe reuse systems. – The main challenge is to create informed demand for improved sanitation. 

20

4. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS 

Institutional and managerial aspects – For DESA dissemination: efforts in political advocacy, technical promotion and capacity building for all involved stakeholders should be continued. – Effluent requirements should be further developed in accordance to the available technologies. • Step-wise approach in standard and code system establishment. – Monitoring and inspection (by the local environmental protection agencies). – DESA: environment for new ideas (technical solutions, managerial and financial approaches). • Government should create favour conditions for those new ideas to be developed and verified. • Suitable appraisal system of technologies and equipment.

21

Sanitation has to be started from the household !

In-door sanitation

Cluster sanitation

Centralized sanitation facilities

Discharge/Reuse 22

4. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) 

Technical aspects – Combination of different options – Cost-benefit analysis of different sanitation options should be developed. – We need information of unit costs of different sanitation options, in different local contexts

23

Technical options: ‘‘Sanitation tree’’ Reuse

Unit Costs per Household

Reuse

Double vault dry toilet

$$

$$ $$

$$ $$ $$

Tertiary treatment Secondary treatment

OnOn-site Septic tank systems Wet private pit

Dry private pit

$

Improved public or shared latrine

Health

Unimproved pit latrine Public or unimproved shared latrine Open defecation (to land or water)

Time

Water

Intangibles

Excreta & Water Re-Use

Benefits 24

Unit cost, $/per.year

Change of unit costs of sanitation options with different population densities

2

A

4

3 E B D

1

C P o p u la t io n d e n s ity , p e r /h a

•Unit costs: investment + O&M expenses. •1, 2: low-tech and high-tech on-site sanitation facilities. •3: centralized systems •4: decentralized systems. •BCD: Optimum zone for DESA application

25

4. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.)

 

  

Updating of national codes and standards, technical guidelines. Capacity building – teaching curricula – short-term training courses Consideration of DESA approach from the early stages of the urban and rural infrastructure planning, IWRM. Crucial: to book adequate space, and to control construction ground level. Reuse should be considered in urban sanitation projects.

26


Financial aspects – To mobilize different financial sources. – Micro-financing • Revolving fund in urban areas • Micro-credit in rural areas – In urban areas: costs of sanitation • ST & connection to sewer: 0.1 – 1% • toilet & bathroom: 0.3 – 5% of the total cost spent for the land and the building. • Understanding will certainly lead house owners to invest for their infrastructure early & reduce overall expenses. • & to pay for recovery of O&M expenses.

27


PSP in sanitation: – Currently: • pre-fabricated septic tanks and other sanitary wares, • septic tank emptying service, • solid waste collection – treatment – recycling – disposal. – New models: • BT project by Gamuda Berhad ($300 mio. vs. 324 ha, $1 bio) • Hanoi city: Call for 45 city lakes restoration projects ($80 mio.)

28

Thank you very much for your attention

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Viet Anh Vice Director, Institute of Environmental Science and Engineering (IESE), Hanoi University of Civil Engineering Add. 55 Giai Phong Rd. Hanoi, Vietnam. Tel. 04-3628 45 09, Fax 04-3869 3714, MP. 091320.9689, Email. [email protected]; www.vietdesa.net

29